Ex Parte Crim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12350176 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/350,176 01/07/2009 Christopher Crim 18962-0218001 6412
47743 7590 02/23/2017
DOWNEY RR AND T T P
EXAMINER
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. BOX 569
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
Cupertino, CA 95015 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDocketing @ Downey Brand, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CRIM, DAVID McKEE, RICHARD L.
KALMAN, JR., and STEPHEN IREMONGER
Appeal 2015-001756
Application 12/350,176
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-001756
Application 12/350,176
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, 14—18, and 20. Claims 5, 13, and 19 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 6—14) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1—8) that the Examiner’s rejections
(see Final Act. 3—19) of:
(i) claims 1—3, 7—11, and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over FileMaker Pro 9’s User’s Guide, pp. 1—8
(2007)(hereinafter, “FileMaker”), Cologon, FileMaker Pro 9 Bible User’s
Guide, Edition 1, pp. 1—206 (March 24, 2008)(hereinafter, “Cologon”), Brill
(US 2005/0203878 Al; published Sept. 15, 2005), and Agrawal (US
2009/0216718 Al; published Aug. 27, 2009); and
(ii) claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over FileMaker, Cologon, Brill, Agrawal, and Wroblewski (US
2008/0071748 Al; published Mar. 20, 2008)
are in error, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the
Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—16).
The Examiner relies on Agrawal flflf 19, 22, 24; Figs. 1A and IB) as
teaching or suggesting the common table limitation of independent claims 1,
9, and 15 (see Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 4—9). Although we agree with the
Examiner that Agrawal teaches or suggests first and second queries Qi and
Q2 (see Agrawal 19, 22, 24), as well as plural tables P, R, and T
associated with those tables (see Agrawal Tflf 22 and 24), we find that
Agrawal fails to disclose or suggest determining a search query and a layout
of a user interface share the same table, as Appellants assert (App. Br. 8—9).
2
Appeal 2015-001756
Application 12/350,176
We also find that Agrawal combined with FileMaker fails to disclose or
suggest “determining, by the processor, from among the plurality of stored
search queries, at least a first stored search query, wherein the respective
second tables associated with the first stored search query and the one or
more first tables associated with the layout have at least one table in
common,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
remaining independent claims 9 and 15, as Appellants assert (App. Br. 9—
10).
Further, Agrawal discloses that queries “Qi and Q2, which are
unrelated (e.g., they scan different tables, namely P and R), and hence there
is no benefit in executing them jointly” (see Agrawal 124). We find the
Examiner’s explanations (see Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 3—9) that Agrawal
teaches or suggests the disputed common table feature of independent claims
1, 9, and 15 to be unreasonable.
Based on the foregoing, we concur with Appellants’ assertions (see
App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 1—7) that the cited portions of Agrawal do not teach
or suggest first and second tables having “at least one table in common” as
recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 9,
and 15, as well as corresponding dependent claims 2-4, 6—8, 10-12, 14, 16—
18, and 20 depending respectively therefrom.
3
Appeal 2015-001756
Application 12/350,176
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 15, as
well as claims 2—4, 6—8, 10-12, 14, 16—18, and 20 depending respectively
therefrom.1
DECISION2
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—12, 14—18, and
20.
REVERSED
1 When a dependent claim and the independent claim it incorporates are not
separately argued, precedent guides that absent some effort at distinction, the
claims rise or fall together. See Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 18, and 20 for the same reasons as provided
for claims 1, 9, and 15 from which these claims respectively depend. Cf. In
reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Djependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious . . . .”); see also In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1569, 1572 (Fed.
Cir. 1987) (dependent claims, not argued separately, fall with the
independent claims, even though the dependent claims were rejected based
on additional (or different) references.).
2 We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Many
of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive;
nonetheless we were persuaded of error by this issue concerning the
common table recited in claims 1, 9, and 15, and as such we do not reach the
additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
4